Right, I’ve been saying this for years. Those two could go at any time, as could any of us. And I totally agree with the Biden angle. Not that he needs a lot more votes IMO, he seems pretty well-positioned to win now. But every bit helps.
So you decry it being a political branch (so long as it’s Republican), but you want to keep it a political branch so long as it’s Democrat (or should I use Democratic in this instance?)? And then hopefully make it nonpartisan? What happens if it can’t be made bipartisan? We’re just supposed to keep it left-leaning?
As long as it’s partisan, of course it should be left leaning. Just like the WH, Senate, and House. I’m sure conservatives want it to be right leaning.
It’d certainly be better for the country if it could be non-partisan and trusted by all, but that’s not in the cards right now. Hopefully we can make it so in the future. But here, in the real world of the present, we should fight like hell to make that branch lean to the left (or towards justice and rightness, as I see it), just like we should do so for the other branches.
This New York Times article says that polls show voters in Maine, North Carolina, and Arizona favor Biden picking the next Supreme Court justice over Trump at a slightly higher margin than Biden’s overall favorability.
Thanks for expounding further. Appreciate it.
I share your pessimism, but not the optimistic turn that you take in the last sentence. SCOTUS is so highly politicized and bitterly divided because it reflects the bitterly divided state of American politics. As others have implied, in other first-world democracies a new Supreme Court appointee would be back-page news attracting little interest. And it’s not because those courts aren’t important – they sometimes make landmark decisions that equal or exceed, or at least predate, anything that’s been done by SCOTUS. For instance in Canada, the Supreme Court overturned ALL laws against abortion decades ago, and was among the first in the world to legalize same-sex unions – both of those on constitutional grounds.
The reason no one cares about new justices is because they are presumed to be both highly qualified legal scholars and as impartial as humanly possible. This can only happen in the US if the toxic political divisiveness is somehow curtailed, and I can’t see that happening without really major long-term cultural upheavals. Trump has of course escalated the divisiveness to a whole new level, promoting not only racism, xenophobia, and white supremacy, but an entirely new paradigm of Orwellian alternate reality, where falsehood becomes truth, and truth becomes “fake news”.
Could the Democrats impeach Trump and tie up the Senate in another impeachment trial?
@Fiveyearlurker: I don’t think so. Even if the House was able to get an impeachment drafted and voted on quickly, I don’t think that there’s any rule stating that the Senate has to act on the impeachment immediately.
Lots of people who applaud the Notorious R.B.G. don’t know how much she accomplished. And long before joining the Supreme Court. A summary:
If I were advising congressional democrats + Biden, I would step back. Point out McConnell’s hypocrisy…but then get out of the way while they fight each other, as Mitch tries to hold his majority together. The Dems can’t stop it, so they should just keep their heads down and not present an easy target.
If worst comes to worst, Congress can pass legislation that strips the Court of jurisdiction to review certain issues.
I predict there will be enough republican senators who will pledge not to fill it until after the election, or after inauguration if Biden wins.
Call me naive, but I think there are still enough who recognize that the court must maintain some legitimacy.
If Grassley, Murkowski and Graham hold, they only need one more. I’d bet on Romney.
No chance of Graham holding, and very little chance of Grassley, IMO.
Markos Moulitsas makes an interesting point:
Rushing to get it done is out of weakness – the GOP really thinks they’re going to lose the WH and Senate. If they thought they’d keep them, then they could maintain moral AND political high ground by waiting until after inauguration.
It’s not likely (Democrats are usually bad at hardball politics), but Kos argues that they should make this argument to the Republicans – if you make the court 6-3 now, in a few months it will be 6-7, or 6-9, along with expansion of all the other courts. If you’re willing to hold to precedent (i.e. the “McConnell rule”), then it will be 5-4 in a few months, but we won’t expand the courts.
I think that’s actually a pretty good argument to make. But the Democrats probably won’t make it.
I don’t think enthusiasm is that important. Everyone gets one vote, regardless of how strongly they feel. Now, (and maybe its just semantics) what counts is determination.
I would not describe myself as an enthusiastic voter in this election. But I frequently describe myself as a determined Democratic voter.
I really don’t see any outcome other than the Republicans trying to push through a the biggest conservative they can find as fast as possible against the backdrop of the constant media replay of their hypocrisy.
It’s not like they don’t have other options. One possible scenario - this is total speculation on my part, I haven’t heard anyone suggest it might happen) is for them to pick a conservative jurist with a record of bipartisanship in order to push it through quick and assure that they get vulnerable senators on-board. Ted Olson or John E. Jones are the two that came to my mind. Olson has argued for some really horrible decisions, like Citizens United and is a fan of executive power, but he also has argued for gay marriage and DACA. Jones isn’t as well known and doesn’t have the long history of conservative judgements to balance out the two large cases where he ruled against the conservative positions on gay marriage and intelligent design, but he was a Bush appointee.
Another approach, which has been suggested, would be to take the high road and agree to wait until after the election. Then use this to try to get the Trump weary conservatives that Biden is going after back on their side.
I think there was a time when they could make these approaches work - but they can’t now.
The conservative leadership has positioned the Democratic Party as a terrorist organization, and average liberal Americans as members of a hostile occupation force. If they fail to try push the most conservative Federalist asshole that they can find through by any means possible, they will be accused of negotiating with terrorists by Trump and his “base”.
I think this tactic is likely to backfire. They don’t really have a lot of time and they could waste a bunch of it if Trump get emboldened and insists on nominating Giuliani or someone equally objectionable.
And while most conservatives are craven and small-minded enough to cheer on the bullying, it really does make a lot of mainstream religious suburban Republicans uncomfortable. And they are a critical voting bloc.
What can I say, interesting times and plenty of opportunity for the Democrats to seize defeat from the jaws of victory. And they are good at it.
McConnell has already put out a letter to Republican Senators a urging them not to take a position on allowing a vote this year that they “may later regret.”
Real subtle, Mitch.
It would have been subtle if he hadn’t enclosed the pictures of their puppies and grandchildren being held forcibly in the basement of his home.
Looks like you are right about that. Act Blue is CRUSHING IT!!
I think it is a given that the Republican will nominate and confirm a conservative justice. The youngest most conservative one they can get 51 votes for. That part’s all over but the wailing and moaning. I would be truly shocked if they didn’t jam through a conservative justice before Christmas.
I think this also means that the Biden wins. There are too many principled conservatives who no longer have much need for Donald Trump now that the court seems fairly secure.
The supreme court only really mattered to the conservatives because things were going against them there. Now the foot is in the other shoe.